Why no 240FPS mode in DSLRs?

Has there been any explanation from Canon on why the point and shoots have a super slo motion mode (240fps @ 240p) but none of the dslrs have it?

Doesn't it look like crap though?

I have never seen a point and shoot do anything like that and look good. I image it has to do with the mirror? Maybe the Sony DSLRs might be able to do it.

SLRs no grimmicky.

What about file sizes? Would this be related to video or stills? Not sure whats the context here :$

EDIT: Nvm saw the OP. Why would anyone want 240 FPS @ 240p It will just look terrible. Besides, isn't 60 FPS enough to get regular silky smooth "slo-motion"? Anything extreme would require special gear.

Yup, my Canon S100 has Super slow motion at 240FPS, and it works quite well, but the image size is 320 x 240, and that's pretty small.

because it's a camera first and foremost? I regard slow mo as a gimmick. DSLRs tend to not have gimmicks.

WRXTACY wrote in post #14475436
Doesn't it look like crap though?

I have never seen a point and shoot do anything like that and look good. I image it has to do with the mirror? Maybe the Sony DSLRs might be able to do it.

Bingo...I think that's the reason...my S100 has it, and I don't use it (even though I do like taking slow-motion videos).

davidc502 wrote in post #14475789
Yup, my Canon S100 has Super slow motion at 240FPS, and it works quite well, but the image size is 320 x 240, and that's pretty small.

I was never happy with 240 fps on the S100. I've taken a few videos at 120 fps and have been satisfied, but 240 fps was disappointing.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14475811
because it's a camera first and foremost? I regard slow mo as a gimmick. DSLRs tend to not have gimmicks.

I like it... Here's a quick 120 fps video of my 5Dc/100 f2 taking a picture (taken with the S100):

http://www.youtube.com …XzpQ&index=3&fe​ature=plcp

The sheer amount of processing and data rate needed (at 1080p @24 I believe the camera writes about 330mb/min), to have any useable resolution at that framerate would require space and specs out of the realm of DSLRS. I BELIEVE at its current codec if the 60D for example was to record at 1080 at 240 (which is not even common, as usually framrates that high are usually specialized slo mo cams that record in crazy low resolutions) would e somewhere along the lines of 3.3GB/min.

Technology isn't there yet. And the gimmicky pixelated ultra low rez in the point and shoots is almost useless.

A lot of it being due to the codec that it's being encoded in. A RED camera for example can record 4k RAW (redcode) around the area of 28-39 MB/s. But that's a cinema camera, SLR aren't going to carry the same encoding efficiency. (although the upcoming 1D C is making strides).

MichaelVeraPhotography wrote in post #14475887
Technology isn't there yet. And the gimmicky pixelated ultra low rez in the point and shoots is almost useless.

While I agree with most of what you said, I beg do differ on your above point. Have you used that function on some of the better cameras?

The 120 fps function on the S100 is very decent especially for just posting on the web (certainly not gimmicky or overly pixelated...especially when watched in the normal YouTube window, not in full-screen mode), even under extremely harsh lighting conditions (single LED lighting from the side)...the video gets interesting just after the 15 second mark...shot a glass of water with a BB gun haha

http://www.youtube.com …XzpQ&index=6&fe​ature=plcp

It's not perfect or extremely high quality, but it does the job, I think, and allows us to monkey around with things

Of course...it's no Threw It On the Ground quality

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14475921
While I agree with most of what you said, I beg do differ on your above point. Have you used that function on some of the better cameras?

The 120 fps function on the S100 is very decent especially for just posting on the web (certainly not gimmicky or overly pixelated...especially when watched in the normal YouTube window, not in full-screen mode), even under extremely harsh lighting conditions (single LED lighting from the side)...the video gets interesting just after the 15 second mark...shot a glass of water with a BB gun haha

http://www.youtube.com …XzpQ&index=6&fe​ature=plcp

It's not perfect or extremely high quality, but it does the job, I think, and allows us to monkey around with things

lol ya, I was referring to the referenced 240 fps more so than the 120. I should have specified.

I have seen some relatively descent 120fps footage.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14475921
http://www.youtube.com …XzpQ&index=6&fe​ature=plcp

Oh and Nice vid!

MichaelVeraPhotography wrote in post #14476149
lol ya, I was referring to the referenced 240 fps more so than the 120. I should have specified.

I have seen some relatively descent 120fps footage.

Ah yes, you're right about the 240 fps...I shot the same thing with both modes under the same lighting (admittedly not the best of conditions, but good for showing the shortcomings of the modes), and here's what 240 fps looks like:

http://www.youtube.com …XzpQ&index=8&fe​ature=plcp

I have decided to simply ignore the 240fps mode as it's pretty much garbage.

MichaelVeraPhotography wrote in post #14476179
Oh and Nice vid!

Thanks!

Is it even necessary to do in camera? Meaning, can you record at 1080p @ 30fps and just use software to get the same effect?

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14477264
Is it even necessary to do in camera? Meaning, can you record at 1080p @ 30fps and just use software to get the same effect?

No! There may be times that you might, but really there is no substitute for frame rate for a lot of the things that you would want to use that sort of super slow motion for. In fact untill we can get up towards 1000fps I would struggle to film some of the things that I would love to have a go with. Even 240 fps is going to struggle with items travelling at 3000feet/second. Even things moving at 100mph are going to move in the region of 6 feet frame to frame at 25 or 30 fps.

Alan